Marriage of Bustillo CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 2014 No. G048816Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal as untimely because the appellant failed to file his notice of appeal within 180 days of the trial court's minute order, which was a final and appealable pendente lite attorney fee order.

Issues

Whether a pendente lite attorney fee order is a final, appealable order.
Whether the appellant's notice of appeal was filed within the jurisdictional time limits.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a direct appeal lies from a pendente lite attorney fees order where nothing remains for judicial determination except the issue of compliance or noncompliance with its terms.”

“Todd, however, filed his notice of appeal on August 2, 2013, well beyond the time allotted.”

Filed 12/15/14 Marriage of Bustillo CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of KARI and TODD BUSTILLO.

KARI BUSTILLO, G048816 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09D010394) v. OPINION TODD BUSTILLO,

Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lon F. Hurwitz, Judge. Motion to dismiss the appeal granted; sanctions motion denied. Todd C. Bustillo, in pro. per., for Appellant. Michel & Rhyne and Karen Rhyne for Respondent. * * *

Todd Bustillo (Todd) appeals from the trial court’s May 11, 2012, order requiring him to pay $5,000 in attorney fees to respondent Kari Bustillo (Kari).1 Kari filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and also moved for sanctions against Todd for pursuing a frivolous appeal. We grant Kari’s motion to dismiss the appeal, but decline to award sanctions. I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The parties married in October 2004 and separated in October 2009. The trial court entered the judgment of dissolution and the division of property and debts on April 8, 2011. Kari filed a motion in July 2011 to set aside the judgment, claiming Todd failed to disclose assets, but the trial court denied the motion, which we upheld on appeal. (Bustillo v. Bustillo (May 3, 2013, G046725) [nonpub. opn.].) The proceedings continued on reserved issues, and in May 2012 the trial court granted Kari’s motion for attorney fees. Both Todd and Kari were represented by counsel. The court noted the fee request pertained “to the ability to adjudicate the child custody, visitation issues, child support issues and . . . unadjudicated assets . . .” at the upcoming hearing. The court explained the Family Code provides for fee awards to ensure each party has access to legal representation. Based on a disparity of income in which Kari had monthly income of $400 and no assets, and Todd earned about $8,000 a month and had $4,500 in the bank, the trial court ordered Todd to pay $5,000 directly to Kari’s counsel as a share of Kari’s attorney fees. The trial court’s minute order states: “Pursuant to [Family Code] 2030 and 2032, the court orders the respondent pay attorney fees to petitioner’s attorney in the amount of $5,000.00 subject to further adjudication and determination at the time of

Marriage of Bustillo CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ARONSON, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

THOMPSON, J.

AI Brief